This is a cooperative effort. Please stop removing other people's work without explaining your rationale. There's room on the talk page to discuss this.


--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hawking's baby

The baby is clearly Daniel, who else could it be? It makes sense for the writers to have Dan die and in the next episode have the characters discover that Eloise is pregnant with him. There's no other explanation. And it cannot be Penny either; I know it's a popular and exciting theory but it just doesn't fit. Penny is shown to be older than Dan and if she was born in 1977 it means should would only be 17 years old when Desmond first met her. Charles clearly had her at some other point in the past. Dan fits the category because he doesn't look any older than thirty and it's extremely possible that he was in his late twenties when he arrived on the island.

This is a theory, it has not been confirmed. Please do not edit UQs that ask the question of the baby's identity. --Blueeagleislander 03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacob UQ

Hi there, you've removed the question from Jacob's page stating "How could Jacob have talked to Hurley in 2008, when he had been killed in 2007?" UQs are a highly contentious area of the site, and it is highly encouraged that rationales aregiven either on the talk page or in the edit summary bar to avoid conflict. --Blueeagleislander 07:10, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

How could Jacob visit Hurley in 2008 if he died in 2007? The whole question is absolutely ridiculous. First off, the 316 storyline takes place in 2007 yes, but so did Jack, Kate, Sun, Sayid, Ben and Hurley going back to the island as well. Darlton confirmed this in an officil Lost podcast. If Jacob talked to Hurley in 2008 that means flight 316 must have gone back in time from 2008 to 2007 when it crashed on the island. EVERYTHING in the present day takes place in 2007 because the Darlton team THEMSELVES confirmed it and there's no questioning them. So, how did Jacob talk to Hurley in 2008? He didn't; it was 2007. After convincing Hurley, Jacob returned to the island where he met his demise a few days later. It's as simple as that --Boondocks4ever 15:18, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how this works. You don't just go around deleting other people's work without a rationale. This is now the second time that you have deleted my work without justification. STOP.--Tenaciousd 10:20, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions/Ben Linus

If you have a rationale for deleting my work, discuss it in the talk page, but stop deleting without proper justification. We still don't know HOW ben was healed at the temple, so it is a valid UAQ. This is a collaborative effort. --Tenaciousd 10:26, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Are you really that stupid in not seeing that ben WAS healed in the spring in the temple. How else could he have been healed? Sometimes we have to assume things when Darlton doesn't give us a straight forward answer; they said so in one of their podcasts. They showed us sayid and in doing so we have to assume that ben was too

Revert "Locke" edit

Hi. The approach of using "Locke" to signify the Man in Black with the appearance of Lock has been accepted for most of this season. Because of that and for the sake of consistency it is the solution which is seen as the best of a range of imperfect approaches. You can follow the extensive discussion amongst editors over several months - but there is the usual topic on the talk page for The Last Recruit.

Please involve yourself in discussion before making major edits of this sort. You also failed to distinguish between the characters themselves calling him Locke even though they know he is not the person John Locke - in these cases there is no doubt we should use their naming of him and this is one of the many reasons we have adopted the "Locke" solution.

It is also a good idea to describe the reason for edits in the summary entry box at the bottom of each edit you make    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   06:46, April 27, 2010 (UTC)



The mystery portal is for major mysteries ONLY. Ex. the major mystery of the temple was "What is the temple?" and "How do they heal people there?". We got these questions answered so the Temple is answered. The show itself never rose the question "Who built the Temple?", therefore it's not part of the major mystery of The Temple. Please don't revert any more mysteries unless you discuss them first. --Orhan94 23:20, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'll revert back as many as I want being as we don't have all the answers. Who built the temple is no the only question, but also how is the pool inside able to revive the dying? Many questions have not been answered yet. YOU should not be going around assumming that these questions have been answered--Boondocks4ever 02:30, May 12, 2010 (UTC)boondocks4ever

  • I don't "go around assuming that these questions have been answered". You can't expect an answer to the question "how does the water raise from the dead?" as there is no possible scientific answer, it just does. --Orhan94 19:15, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a scientific answer to a question, are too dumb to see that the show has many paranormal explanations for questions as well? Word of advice kid, once every question for a mystery that matters is solved, then you can call it completed. In the mean time, several things such as Illana, Eloise Hawking, The Temple, the polar bear skeleton appearing in the desert "exit", Jacob, and the man in black still have questions surrounding them; so they cannot, therefore, be considered to be fully answered

--Boondocks4ever 19:20, May 12, 2010 (UTC)boondocks4ever

Hello. Polar bears have been solved. They were brought to the Island by the DHARMA Initiative and held on Hydra Island in the Polar Bear Cages. They were confirmed to have swum across to the main island and live there. The DHARMA Initiative was testing the polar bears to survive in tropical climates. Clearly, the polar bear skeletons were used to test the Frozen Wheel as a proper exit of the island. It would make sense that the animals be used as a test because doing so results in "banishment" and it would be better to test it out on an animal than a person. Also, Jacob, MIB, and their Feud are all solved. They were born on the Island and taken by "Mother" after murdering their true mother. Mother wanted them to take her place so she could die and they could protect the Island, specifically, The Source. Jacob lives forever because he drank the wine, any questions you have regarding this should be under a new mystery, but I don't think its significant enough to make a new mystery out of the "magic wine." The Monster is also solved because it is a product of the electromagnetic energy underneath the Island, specifically the Source. The electromagnetic energy and the "Source" are one and the same, shown when MiB throws the dagger at the rock above the Frozen Wheel site. What other questions do you have about them? Msett 19:36, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


Where did you get the date of MIB/Jacob's birth as 23AD. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  20:05, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

I got 23 AD from many spoiler sites I visited and this was also backed up from a recent interview with Mark Pellegrino who plays Jacob. To say they were born between 460 BC and 900 AD is way to big of a time span to consider

--Boondocks4ever 02:18, May 13, 2010 (UTC)boondocks4ever

We rely on Canon here. See Canon. Nothing you offer on this is canon. If it isn't canon it doesn't stay in the main pages.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:22, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as ive said before anything based solely on spoilers belongs no where near this site, Ive heard spoilers originally reported Ilana was to be revealed as Jacob's daughter........ well what happened to that. Alot of spoilers can be fake, and wrong, not a good source. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:32, May 14, 2010 (UTC)


You have been blocked for three days because of the edit war on Portal:Mysterious. Once you're unblocked you can discuss the change of the status of the few mysteries you want to see changed on Talk:Portal:Mysterious. --Orhan94 20:08, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Please stop removing the UQs before LP reaches on consensus on whether they should be removed or not. If you do continue I would have to resort to blocking you again (this time for a longer time) because you certainly didn't get the idea that edit wars are not acceptable on Lostpedia. --Orhan94 19:56, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I will keep removing useless and pointless questions that have no correlation to the show, such as "Why is the ladder in the hatch broken?" If Darlton saw that question they would laugh at loud at how stupid it is. Others such as "did the food drop have anything to do with the lockdown?" is something we have to assume happened. Darlton themselves said in an official lost podcast that have to use our brains and think out certain answers rather than them being answered directly. So no, I won't stop editing dumb questions because they waste people's time and use up space. --Boondocks4ever 05:52, June 4, 2010 (UTC) boondocks4ever


I strongly suggest you find a purpose in life other than removing UQ's without explanation. there are plenty of things to do on this site, and many find the mere existence of other ppls UQ as a useful prompt as to what they should think about. I know many UQs are now AQs but you should still be circumspect and at the least provide your answers on the relevant talk pages.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   16:54, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

You need to tell me what questions you think I shouldn't be removing, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about. If the questions involve things like, "why is the ladder in the hatch broken?", then yes, I will keep removing questions like that because they have absolutely NO imnportance to Lost or its storyline and if you REALLY want the answer to something like that, I suggest you leave this site and go and pout somewhere else--Boondocks4ever 16:31, May 30, 2010 (UTC)boondocks4ever

Look at the top of this page and you'll see the entry where I cautioned you about deleting work by others without explanation. The next message from you to another editor in the same flavor as that above will earn you a one-year ban to think about you actions. BTW, when you do delete questions, explain your actions and don't delete links to foreign language pages like you did on Daniel's experiments.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:21, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.